RSS
Being Generous With Other People's Money
Given that today I heard Obama make a few unflattering remarks about Vice President Dick Cheney, I found this piece by Arthur Brooks to be interesting.
In it, Brooks notes the Barack and Michele Obama were not particularly generous when it came to charitable giving when they made a crummy $230,000 a year.
"The Obamas got rich in 2005. Their income increased sevenfold from 2004 to 2005, mostly because of Mr. Obama’s book royalties, and stayed very high in 2006 for the same reason. In 2006, another wealthy political couple with significant book royalties was Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney’s books and the couple’s investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity from their bonanza? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)
This last fact does not generally square with the well-cultivated liberal trope of the blackhearted Cheneys. Unless, that is, you believe that private charity is not an important value that defines one’s character, compared with government taxation and welfare spending (which Mr. Cheney generally opposes, despite the profligate ways of the Bush White House).
Being generous with other people's money. Not a bad definition of the Obamas brand of liberalism.
In it, Brooks notes the Barack and Michele Obama were not particularly generous when it came to charitable giving when they made a crummy $230,000 a year.
"The Obamas got rich in 2005. Their income increased sevenfold from 2004 to 2005, mostly because of Mr. Obama’s book royalties, and stayed very high in 2006 for the same reason. In 2006, another wealthy political couple with significant book royalties was Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney’s books and the couple’s investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity from their bonanza? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)
This last fact does not generally square with the well-cultivated liberal trope of the blackhearted Cheneys. Unless, that is, you believe that private charity is not an important value that defines one’s character, compared with government taxation and welfare spending (which Mr. Cheney generally opposes, despite the profligate ways of the Bush White House).
Being generous with other people's money. Not a bad definition of the Obamas brand of liberalism.
posted by Spencerblog at
10:01 PM
9 Comments:
So let me get this straight...
Based on the numbers that you cite, the Cheneys make $8.8 million (on top of hundreds of millions that they have accumulated from a long career as a CEO) and keep $1.9 million of it.
Meanwhile Obama's income goes from about $32,000 (almost qualifies his family of 4 for welfare) to $230,000 one year and you call him greedy for keeping it? He has kids to put through college just like the rest of us. He probably had a lot of loans to pay off scraping by on $32,000 in Chicago with a family of four.
If that's the worst thing you can come up with on him, he's doing pretty well for a politician.
That's far from the worst thing about B. Hussein Obama.
Not greedy. Chinzy. And a bit of hypocrite. For taking character shots at Cheney when he's more generous in his charitable giving then Obama and his wife are.
Typical though, no credit for what the Cheneys give only complaint about what they "keep."
Meanwhile excuse after excuse of Obama. Student loans, college tuitions for his kids. His kids are 9 and 6. By the time they're ready for college the Obamas will be multi-millionaires. Like the Clintons. And still probably playing the class warfare game.
Gil's right. Let's see CNN report on how much the Cheneys gave in 2007. You'll NEVER hear it. Same goes for Bush's environmentally friendly Ranch in Crawford. You'll never hear it.
Slam Fox News for it's conservative views, but leave the other stations alone for drumming up the liberal hype?
This comment has been removed by the author.
That's right.
Conservatives only donate to charity to "take the heat off" while liberals donate less but for much more honorable reasons. NOT!
Check out Arthur Brooks' "Who Really Cares - America's Charity Divide: Who Gives. Who Doesn't. And Why it Matters."
Not very flattering to liberals.
What people give to charity should be their own business.
But when liberals constantly refer to conservatives as "greedy" and think of themselves as so wonderful because they are willing to take and spend other people's money well, then they deserve the shellacking that Arthur Brooks, a liberal himself, gives them.
Right. For all their Socialist love of spreading the wealth, Libs sure are tight with their own money. They just want to redistribute everyone else's wealth.
This is but another topic on which the Left has lied to everyone for so long that it has become accepted that the Right is stingy and greedy. Truth is, no one pays more taxes to keep this joint running and no one gives more to charity than Righties. Fact, this.
Even mean old Dick Cheney regularly gives more to charity than his LibDem attackers. Imagine that. Maybe he's not so evil after all.
Don't listen to the Lying Left. They lie to you.
The next time you get in debate with a liberal about why the government should do this, or why they should do that, ask them, "well why don't you give some of your money to a charitable organization that will address this issue." Just watch the great expression that comes over their faces.
Yeah, Libs have all these great idea that require money to make happen. But they’re never content to do it with just their own money or by drumming contributions from others who feel their weep. No, they want everyone to pay for their pet causes whether they agree with the cause or not, often endruning for coercive and extortive legislation to do it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home